Sucky Bucky | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 00:07:26 on Jul 12, 2008

Quote from Bucky:
Yeah, okay, you fail the internet by using the phrase "backdrop and epoch are immaterial".


Find someone to translate that into baby-babble for you.


--------

Battlestar Galactica: Ghosts #1 (of 4)

Reply

Quote

Wow, you suck at life | Report this post to moderator
By: Bucky (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:47:25 on Jul 11, 2008

Quote:
TRexx: backdrop and epoch are immaterial

Yeah, okay, you fail the internet by using the phrase "backdrop and epoch are immaterial". Seriously, go away.

--------

An elephant never forgets . . .TO KILL!

Reply

Quote

Beaming Up the Brain-Dead | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 21:29:31 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
...rather than attempt to come up with a solution for Star Trek's "writing problem"...


I do address the "writing problem", which you're unable to comprehend on any level -- not onscreen in the episodes, and not in dialog here.

Again and again, you need special explanation for common and basic things in everyday adult life.

The good news, for you, is that GR's Star Trek can be enjoyed by children and idiots who don't see that there's also a message for the competent.


--------

Star Trek: Year 4 - Enterprise Experiment #3

Reply

Quote

The best TRexx is fossilized and incased in rock. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 17:40:21 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote:
This doesn't make me a genius, it shows you to be stunted for a 30 year-old.

...and the fact you spent the entire post trying in vain to insult me, rather than attempt to come up with a solution for Star Trek's "writing problem" proves that your argument is wrong.

The best writing in the world would not have kept 13 million viewers every week. Like the unkowledgeable Star Trek die-hards, you refuse to look in the mirror and admit that the general audience didn't want to watch Star Trek, regardless of how good it was. You are a lemming, following the "blame the writers" piper off the cliff. Congrats.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Goo-Goo -A- Go-Go | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 14:28:49 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
Since you feel the franchise was not stale, and the premise had not lost popularity and this was all "clearly" Berman and Company's fault -- tell us what YOU would have done genius.


If you had normal adult comprehension skills, you'd see that all of my posts here address that topic. The problem (for you) is that I haven't been posting in whatever babytalk you might understand.

It's great that you enjoy the sci-fi candy coating, but the architecture of Roddenberry's (not Berman's) Star Trek is what makes it different from most other space-based sci-fi. Apparently this is so far beyond your cognition that you can't even approach any of the basic concepts. Odds are that your mental condition is scrambling what I'm typing here.

This doesn't make me a genius, it shows you to be stunted for a 30 year-old.


--------

The Free & Open Productivity Software Suite

Reply

Quote

It's always more popular to use the "It's B&B's fault" c | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:32:11 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote:
This is about GR's Star Trek, so your meandering "SciFi which is almost always about" says you see only the superficial sci-fi packaging. Of course you echo Berman's creative bankruptcy by saying "the cash cow had been milked too much and the premise had become stale."

Really? Then PLEASE inform us what stories and writing could have made Enterprise a blockbuster success on UPN.. using the same actors, sets and premise. C'mom TRexx, you are the "genius" of this website, right? Since you feel the franchise was not stale, and the premise had not lost popularity and this was all "clearly" Berman and Company's fault -- tell us what YOU would have done genius.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Surprise? -- Space-Based Sci-Fi! | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:41:10 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
And like most shows, that number dropped off. So you can't use that argument to say that space-based SciFi was still popular.


It's nonsensical to imply that 13-million people tuned in to ENT and were surprised to see that it was space-based sci-fi.

Those 13-million people were scoping for good sci-fi.

What they got instead was Rick Berman's insult to intelligence.


Quote:
In space-based SciFi which is almost always about exploring the unknown and "seeing what's out there"


This is about GR's Star Trek, so your meandering "SciFi which is almost always about" says you see only the superficial sci-fi packaging. Of course you echo Berman's creative bankruptcy by saying "the cash cow had been milked too much and the premise had become stale."

Star Trek is neither depleted nor stale, because backdrop and epoch are immaterial to stories that are concerned with the human condition.

Human nature is immutable -- whether it's wagon-train cowboys against wild frontiers in the past, or starship crewmen against final frontiers in the future. When a storyteller is stumped by the latter, they're also stumped by the former, as these two scenarios differ only by substitution in metaphor.

Any human drama that can be expressed onscreen (or in print) can be transferred into a Star Trek story via Roddenberry's rules for substitution in metaphor. If ST writers are out of fresh ideas, then so are all creative writers.

Berman's POV is the incompetent's POV.


--------

Star Trek Mirror Image #2

Reply

Quote

Ratings, ratings... | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:36:16 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote:
...UPN gave the premiere episode almost 13-million willing viewers.

And like most shows, that number dropped off. So you can't use that argument to say that space-based SciFi was still popular. It was the premier of a new Star Trek show -- nothing more.

Quote:
All ENT had to do was hang on to a respectable chunk of these. TV viewers tuned out at a frantic rate while UPN kept ENT on life support.

And the reason? Enterprise was UPN's flagship show, just like Voyager had been. As long as those shows were on the air, so was UPN. They had to keep the show going, otherwise they would have had no programming worth staying around for - and they did long enough to amass 100 episodes for an attractive syndication package before they pulled the plug. Hardly a glowing review of what the franchise had become.

Quote:
The DS9 "stuck on a station" argument is laughably oblivious to common metaphorical scenarios, which, for example, also allow a wagon train to be replaced by starships for storytelling purposes.

In space-based SciFi which is almost always about exploring the unknown and "seeing what's out there", having 90% of the show be on a dark station is going to cause a lot of people to lose interest. Ask casual Star Trek watchers why they were not fans of DS9, and they will almost always tell you, "It was boring." Remember now... we are talking about the CASUAL audience, which makes up most of it. Their opinion is important whether YOU liked DS9 or not.

Quote:
The mechanics of storytelling should be understood by a competent filmmaker, which Abrams has shown to be.

I agree. But if J.J. used said competent storytelling with the current TNG cast, time period and recycled sets that Nemesis "enjoyed"? It would be a much more difficult road. Hence why other competent storytellers like myself think that a reboot in the vein of Batman Begins was the only way to go in 2008.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Fantasy Islands | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 03:42:39 on Jul 07, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
The fact of the matter is, Enterprise was going to have low ratings on UPN no matter what the stories and scripts were.


That "fact" might apply to wishful thinking, but UPN gave the premiere episode almost 13-million willing viewers. All ENT had to do was hang on to a respectable chunk of these. TV viewers tuned out at a frantic rate while UPN kept ENT on life support, long after another network might've done a mercy killing (CBS endured only 13 episodes of Brannon Braga's Threshold, which also employed Mike Sussman and André Bormanis from ENT).

The DS9 "stuck on a station" argument is laughably oblivious to common metaphorical scenarios, which, for example, also allow a wagon train to be replaced by starships for storytelling purposes. A space station is such a metaphor. Many movie/TV stories are "stuck" within a tightly localized backdrop: The community pub, courtroom, hospital, school, et cetera, are each a stationary base setting for the resident ensemble, with situational interlopers and/or excursions.

The Lost ensemble too are "stuck on a station": a remote island. The premiere episode attracted an audience of 16-million, and its four seasons have never had fewer than 11-million viewers.

The mechanics of storytelling should be understood by a competent filmmaker, which Abrams has shown to be.


--------

Star Trek Mirror Image #1

A B Photo Cover

Reply

Quote

Afraid to look in the mirror. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 19:29:20 on Jul 06, 2008

Quote:
In hindsight, it's remarkable that GR's creation withstood so many years of Berman et al, who profited even as franchise vampires via studio-subsidized UPN. ENT had a new and pretty cast, gorgeous production values, and 13-million viewers seated for its premiere -- but the writing is a pure extract of B&B's insult toward adult intelligence.

That's the point I am trying to make. The die-hard Star Trek fans rarely look in the mirror, because it is far more convenient (and less taboo) to single out a producer or a writer and blame him rather than having the "audacity" to blame the franchise's popularity itself.

The fact of the matter is, Enterprise was going to have low ratings on UPN no matter what the stories and scripts were. The show was TNG repackaged. Voyager was TNG repackaged. DS9 was a richer show, but the average American viewer stayed away because the crew was "stuck on a station."

The franchise needed a break from itself.. the cash cow had been milked too much and the premise had become stale. You don't combat a lack of viewer intrest to see space-based SciFi on TV by producing MORE space-based SciFi for TV, do you?

The answer is "no." You take 4 years off, go back to the most recognizable era (TOS), reinvigorate it with new, young actors playing familiar roles and helm it with a young, fresh man like J.J. to give the franchise a truly different look. We won't know until May if he succeeds, but I like the direction either way.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

New Time-Released Minty Freshness! | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 23:28:50 on Jul 05, 2008 | (2)

Quote from cdydatzigs:
Suddenly the Star Trek universe wasn't as cool anymore.


There's the rub: The "What's kewl today" merchandising mindshare.

In 1987, at 9 years-old, you were hooked by a balding actor (Patrick Stewart) who was pushing 50 in TNG. Why couldn't the same thing happen to any 9 year-old who sees TNG for the first time in encore broadcasts, even now, especially as the production quality has held up to snuff?

The Star Trek series are no longer catered as fresh -- not by the networks, and not by jaded viewers who say, "Ugh, that's old stuff!", even to impressionable youngsters who haven't yet seen the existing material. This is not an audience "growing up", this is much about marketing agendas that can (and do) become social factors in a commercialized culture which has a particular obsession with cosmetics. The constant and indiscriminate craving for something "new but realistic" is what Paramount feeds by giving TOS a CGI facelift. Ditto for the colorization of some classic black-and-white films.

From what we've heard about "new" ST:XI toys, they're Kirk and company with TOS uniforms, tricorders, etc. Déjà vu, but in a big-budget advertising campaign with "Now Cool for Everyone!" merchandising jingles for attention-deficit audiences who "grew up" with TV as a babysitter.

The 40+ year-old Star Trek original is a pop-cult legend that still pays off in worldwide reruns. Michael Piller's creative stimulation within the "Roddenberry Box" navigated TNG into #1 prime-time syndicated TV drama. Nielsen numbers affirm that the fateful downward slide of modern Trek began after Piller's departure, which left the franchise to the whim of showrunners who openly begrudge GR's "rules" for storytelling. This includes Ira Steven Behr (who at least didn't buy wholesale into Rick Berman's misconception about a future Utopia, so DS9 isn't quite a whitewash).

In hindsight, it's remarkable that GR's creation withstood so many years of Berman et al, who profited even as franchise vampires via studio-subsidized UPN. ENT had a new and pretty cast, gorgeous production values, and 13-million viewers seated for its premiere -- but the writing is a pure extract of B&B's insult toward adult intelligence.

Abrams twice said Star Trek "has been a maligned world", so there's hope that he's wise to Berman's blunders.


--------

Star Trek Assignment Earth #3

Reply

Quote

The new Star Wars killed the Star Trek star. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:55:28 on Jul 05, 2008

Quote:
Your original argument was "people as a whole just grew up and lost interest", i.e. that ST appeals mostly to an immature audience.

People like myself who were kids when TNG premiered (I was 9 years old) were hooked because there was nothing else on TV like it. In time, the show opened our eyes to the TOS movies, toys, models and everything else. As I became a teenager, we transitioned into DS9 and Voyager. When they ended I was in my 20's, and Enterprise was nothing more than a means to "get my fix".

In the late-1990s though, the younger kids had something else to become obsessed with. George Lucas began to reintroduce his franchise to the public. Star Wars movies were re-released and re-imagined starting in 1997. Suddenly the Star Trek universe wasn't as cool anymore. In 2002, the Star Trek fans were all college aged or older and Nemesis couldn't rely on that fanbase to make its money. The only younger people going to see Nemesis were nerds and kids who watched Star Trek with their parents and weren't afraid to pay money to see it in a theater.

Quote:
Now you assert that ST has long failed in appeal to youngsters.

It succeeded in the mid-80s when Star Trek was the only new Sci-Fi that was available. Once Star Wars had its rebirth in popularity, kids were not gonna run out and buy toys that depicted middle-aged actors in jumpsuits wandering around corridors with tricorders and mumbling techo-babble. It was boring in comparison to light sabers, CGI and grandiose alien landscapes. Case in point.. could you picture kids running to Target to purchase Star Trek: Nemesis action figures? Of course not - they were made for adult collectors more than anything.

"Bad writing" is an excuse fans use so they can blame individuals for the waning intrest in Star Trek. In reality, it was the the general audience getting older with no new fans propping up and better competition on the big-screen and in toy isles.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Hello... | Report this post to moderator
By: Captain's Blog (Odo's file, contact) @ 08:43:45 on Jul 05, 2008

The movie is getting mainstream media interest, people...

--------

"I would be happy for Star Trek to come along decades later with a new group of minds. I'd love someone to say, 'Besides this one, Gene Roddenberry's was nothing!'" - Gene Roddenberry, Starburst magazine

Reply

Quote

Youngin' Longin' Tooth | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 20:41:46 on Jul 04, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
The 14-25 year old movie-goer ... Star Trek has not really sought this gorup in years so...


Your original argument was "people as a whole just grew up and lost interest", i.e. that ST appeals mostly to an immature audience.

Now you assert that ST has long failed in appeal to youngsters.

Are mirror universes involved in this?


--------

Star Trek New Frontier #4

Reply

Quote

It's the youngin's | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:49:08 on Jul 04, 2008

Quote:
Which untapped species should Abrams expect to attract?

Easy. The 14-25 year old movie-goer. This is the age demographic that comes and sees movies in droves and spends the bulk of the money at the box office. Most of the new fanbase that J.J. wants to attract are in this gorup, because they are most likely to remain loyal when the sequels come out. Star Trek has not really sought this gorup in years so... hopefully this film will do the trick.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Calling All Extraterrestrials | Report this post to moderator
By: TRexx (Odo's file, contact) @ 18:32:13 on Jul 04, 2008

Quote from cdydatzigs:
God forbid these clueless Star Trek fans actually look in the mirror and understand that no matter what material was presented to TV and movie audiences -- people as a whole just grew up and lost interest.


You argue that grown-up "people as a whole" have lost interest, "no matter what material was presented to TV and movie audiences."

Which untapped species should Abrams expect to attract?


--------

Mission: Impossible - S4 starring Leonard Nimoy

Reply

Quote

more of the same.. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 15:32:56 on Jul 04, 2008

Quote:
...it was exploring the human condition in a scifi environment...charcter driven drivel and just horrible story telling have killed Trek.

It is amazing to me how many Star Trek fans have no clue what is good for their own frachise, or know what brought about its near demise.

"Bad writing" has always been the trendy buzz word that these people have used to explain why the popularity of Star Trek has waned. In addition, it's good character development that TNG had, that Voyager and Enterprise lacked then made those characters less relatable -- those shows were more about story arcs, forced rmaonces and in-fighting amongst the crew. God forbid these clueless Star Trek fans actually look in the mirror and understand that no matter what material was presented to TV and movie audiences -- people as a whole just grew up and lost interest.

Quote:
But it doesn't sound like Abrams is the answer.

You haven't seen a single second of footage, how could you make a blanket statement like that?

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Doesn't seem to get it? | Report this post to moderator
By: jimbtnp (Odo's file, contact) @ 13:20:43 on Jul 04, 2008

It sounds like Abrams doesn't get it

ST wasn't the RDM/B&B explore the minutia detailing out everything ever seen on screen

it was exploring the human condition in a scifi environment

charcter driven drivel (RDM) and just horrible story telling (B&B) have killed Trek

But it doesn't sound like Abrams is the answer

Reply

Quote

Is it too late though? | Report this post to moderator
By: the quickening (Odo's file, contact) @ 12:28:17 on Jul 04, 2008

I think the question we have to ask is has the the image of the Trek nerd and the geeky Trekkie become so ingrained in the public's mind that they will stay away from the film, no matter what?

Reply

Quote

The needs of the many... | Report this post to moderator
By: Olaf the Berserker (Odo's file, contact) @ 10:35:11 on Jul 04, 2008

...outweigh the needs of the fans.

The best Science Fiction films immerse us in a fully-realized world. Look at Alien and it's sequel, or Blade Runner (to name a few)... we only saw a fraction of the actual "worlds" the characters inhabited, but it was thought out well enough that that we, the audience, were able to suspend our disbelief and accept those worlds and the rules they imposed on the characters.

For better or worse, Star Trek has the most explored, realized, and documented fictional universe in the history of television or film. We know what a phaser looks like and how it works, we understand what a starship is and what it can, and cannot, do-- because after all, we have the blueprints.

The real challenge for Abrams is to make it not just accessible but irresistible to new fans, while at the same time satisfying a notoriously critical and vocal fanbase (that will bitch all the way to the box office, at least three times the first weekend).

It'll be 10 months before anyone knows for sure.


--------

Berserker!

Reply

Quote

It's about the non-fans stupid. | Report this post to moderator
By: cdydatzigs (Odo's file, contact) @ 09:24:48 on Jul 04, 2008

Quote:
...the new movie intended to appeal as much to the mainstream movie audience as it will to the fans. The idea being that no one gets excluded.

Which is exactly what the franchise has needed for a quite a long time to ensure its future; appeal to general audiences as well. That's the only way these films will make any money.

-- Steve

Reply

Quote

Excellent news. | Report this post to moderator
By: captainkoloth (Odo's file, contact, web site) @ 07:36:06 on Jul 04, 2008

I'm excited for this. I know this isn't anything we haven't heard before, but each week that goes by I'm getting more and more excited to see this. I am a Star Trek fan, but I'm looking forward to this movie as a fan and as a just a movie goer.

--------

There once was a man named Scorned,

whose posts were more offensive than porn.

He posted one too many,

got kicked out on his fanny,

and all the while he had been warned.

Reply

Quote